Dunno why it wouldn't work. FWIW you're not alone, I recently did away with camber plates too and installed a much better set of coilovers to what I had. Pricey to improve both comfort and handling performance but I'm growing intolerant of NVH.
Ad: VTT - New Product Release - Billet Motor Mount Inserts
- Thread starter Chris@VargasTurboTech
- Start date
Dunno why it wouldn't work. FWIW you're not alone, I recently did away with camber plates too and installed a much better set of coilovers to what I had. Pricey to improve both comfort and handling performance but I'm growing intolerant of NVH.
Yea, need another guinea pig for trying out one side to find the "perfect" solution. Then need a single insert buying option
Hey @Chris@VargasTurboTech ask Tony how much these weigh? AHAHAHAHAHA!
Indeed! Getting my Ohlins re-valved/rebuilt by @barry@3DM and doing away with harshness if I can help it. Going with his advice for all of it. I had Vorshlag plates and loved them for autocrossing and Tail of Dragon but it is just overkill for everywhere else.
Yea, need another guinea pig for trying out one side to find the "perfect" solution. Then need a single insert buying option
Hey @Chris@VargasTurboTech ask Tony how much these weigh? AHAHAHAHAHA!
I would be down for splitting cost given some advice on which side to attempt it on. Would prefer not to insert into the costly passenger side, but it does seem like that holds the most weight?
So stock (fluid) mount and plate on drivers side and IS mount alone on passengers side? That what you thinking? Hmmm....
Yeah, not sure how best to approach it.... open for ideas or if I am insane and should just enjoy fresh OEM... down with that as well!
My suspicion - less than 250 lbs and more the vendor vapor, which is weightless
Filippo
473 lbs for a pair.My suspicion - less than 250 lbs and more the vendor vapor, which is weightless
Filippo
I just said last week that someone should make an aftermarket version of this, and voila! Props to VTT.
I've only rocked OEM mounts due to my fear of mount failures from the aftermarket brands (I would've gone 034 over poly due to poly being susceptible to melting from turbo-levels of heat, regardless of the quality of the brand making them but we know how those turn out after a few k miles - though I have heard the Turner/ecs encased poly ones haven't had much issue and that's what @V8bait uses afaik, but still) so imo a plate like these should be excellent, even with the iS mount. The iS mount isn't known to increase NVH on it's own over a stock OEM mount and is really only 5-8ish durometer stiffer from what I've heard so I would think if you used plates on both mounts you would have the best all around setup if you're worried about NVH and performance.Yeah, not sure how best to approach it.... open for ideas or if I am insane and should just enjoy fresh OEM... down with that as well!
I am a little interested if these would work with the old ghetto poly-fill also - not sure what the room inside of the mount would be like for both to fit but using a hair less poly and having the VTT plates take care of the rest could be the best, if not prettiest option.
I actually wonder if adding plates would more or less negate the tiny tactile benefit of the IS mount. And, point of reference - the 1M had standard mounts AFAIK.
Well I think you can understand the fear of the iS mount being so expensive and 'filled'... making these inserts increase the NVH over a quite cushy feeling. I think the standard ones and the poly-fill ones would certainly see a nice improvement (and make those 'ghetto filled' mounts last a LOT longer!).
I wanted to stay OE but the stupid iS passenger mount was over $700 for the longest time... RevShift was FAR cheaper for the two.
Yup! This is what I fear.
I think with the OE mounts (non iS) this is a no-brainer. With the filled iS mounts it gets a little tricky.
So is this where we are at?
stock MM < Stock filled < IS (passenger side) < IS filled < stock + adapters < IS (passengers side) + adapter < everything else too much NVH
stock MM < Stock filled < IS (passenger side) < IS filled < stock + adapters < IS (passengers side) + adapter < everything else too much NVH
Wait, maybe I'm having a dumb moment here lol, but what do you mean by negate the benefit of the iS mount? Just as in add a little additional more, possibly annoying NVH? Or just make the mount no more beneficial than a standard mount?Well I think you can understand the fear of the iS mount being so expensive and 'filled'... making these inserts increase the NVH over a quite cushy feeling. I think the standard ones and the poly-fill ones would certainly see a nice improvement (and make those 'ghetto filled' mounts last a LOT longer!).
I wanted to stay OE but the stupid iS passenger mount was over $700 for the longest time... RevShift was FAR cheaper for the two.
Yup! This is what I fear.
I think with the OE mounts (non iS) this is a no-brainer. With the filled iS mounts it gets a little tricky.
I could be way off here, but I was under the influence that the only difference between the regular and iS mount was that either the viscous fluid was a bit thicker (like 40w vs 30w oil) or the rubber holding it in was a bit thicker, thus keeping the ride feel the same except when compressed quickly/further like under acceleration or turning. I've never seen one up close due to the cost so I'm not sure if I'm way off base here, but if it is how I imagine it then I would think there'd be no increase in NVH (vs a standard OE mount) but you should still get that extra bit of stiffness from the plate still since it's really only felt when load is put on the mount, not at all times.
If only Rob Beck was here to tell us how these VTT products would work!
I do not see how these help in any way the performance of a stock mount, other than to increase NVH, which is then negated by increasing idle, which happens with poly mounts.
When my 034 mount failed, the 'cap' on the bottom sheared apart, which allows the rubber encased mount to move up and down inside of the "shell". This insert will prevent side to side movement of the mount, sure, but how can it prevent any vertical movement from engine torquing? Perhaps I am missing something simple, but when I asked Tony on FB, he replied in typical fashion - as a dick. For the feeble minded, how can this prevent the rubber mount that the engine is bolted to from moving up and down, which is where the stock mount fails from what I've seen.
When my 034 mount failed, the 'cap' on the bottom sheared apart, which allows the rubber encased mount to move up and down inside of the "shell". This insert will prevent side to side movement of the mount, sure, but how can it prevent any vertical movement from engine torquing? Perhaps I am missing something simple, but when I asked Tony on FB, he replied in typical fashion - as a dick. For the feeble minded, how can this prevent the rubber mount that the engine is bolted to from moving up and down, which is where the stock mount fails from what I've seen.
It's literally the same exact thing as what BMW puts on the modern M cars lol. It decreases the gap inside the mount housing to more quickly compress the fluid pouch, and does it more. What's there to be skeptical about?
That’s an interesting way to respond to an honest question...especially when you probably ask more questions than most on here.It's literally the same exact thing as what BMW puts on the modern M cars lol. It decreases the gap inside the mount housing to more quickly compress the fluid pouch, and does it more. What's there to be skeptical about?
Wait, maybe I'm having a dumb moment here lol, but what do you mean by negate the benefit of the iS mount? Just as in add a little additional more, possibly annoying NVH? Or just make the mount no more beneficial than a standard mount?
I could be way off here, but I was under the influence that the only difference between the regular and iS mount was that either the viscous fluid was a bit thicker (like 40w vs 30w oil) or the rubber holding it in was a bit thicker, thus keeping the ride feel the same except when compressed quickly/further like under acceleration or turning. I've never seen one up close due to the cost so I'm not sure if I'm way off base here, but if it is how I imagine it then I would think there'd be no increase in NVH (vs a standard OE mount) but you should still get that extra bit of stiffness from the plate still since it's really only felt when load is put on the mount, not at all times.
If only Rob Beck was here to tell us how these VTT products would work!
I'm suggesting that it will decrease the difference in deflection between IS and nonIS mounts when the aluminum insert is used.
Typical. Getting answers about VTT products is nearly impossible. I remember emailing back and forth about GC vs GC lite when I was trying to decide what turbos to get and being so dissatisfied with the lack of evidence based answers other than "you'll be fine, here's a Dyno on our shop car" or "looks at these 1/4 mile times" that I canceled and went another route.
It would be nice to see a cross section of the stock mount and how much the inserts actually seat down into the voids.
Here ya go. Are you stating the failure is in the bottom rubber disk part ripping off, or do these just start leaking over time?
Similar threads
